Brad Whitt wrote an article on his blog on April 4, 2011 titled The Challenge for Contributing, Committed Southern Baptists. Here is one specific quote I want to focus on:
“The truth is that our denomination stands at a critical crossroads…it will be doctrine, not dress; structure, not style; commitment, not contemporary music that will prove to be our convention’s greatest challenge,”
A commenter named “Adam” responded with these three questions:
1. What doctrine do you consider Southern Baptists to be at a crossroads?
2. What structure in Southern Baptist life are you referencing?
3. To whom or what are Southern Baptists teetering on commitment?
Here are Whitt’s answers:
Adam,
Thanks for your questions. Without going into too much detail and for the sake of time, I will answer them simply and succinctly.
1. I believe that the more Presbyterian form of Calvinism (Double predestination, teaching/lay elder body, view of alcohol as a blessing from God, etc.) which is surfacing in the denomination (Evidenced by the promotion and proliferation of the likes of Piper and Mahaney) is going to become a greater challenge, and cause greater division, in the years to come as there is no balance between those who are Reformed and those who are not like we have historically had – at least last 50 years – as a convention. My Reformed mentors are the ones who tell me that they are Spurgeon Baptists and not Presbyterians like the YRRs they are watching and following today. Again, that’s from my Reformed (One a full five pointer) mentors and friends.
2. For the past 30 years there has been a structure in place through which young pastors could contribute to the work of Christ in the SBC, show their commitment to the things that make us distinctive as a denomination (as well as our primary of funding the greatest missionary organization in the history of the world), be vetted and mentored as they moved up from the association, through the state and to the national committees and platforms. I’m not saying that there was a good old boy network and I won’t say that there wasn’t, but the end result was that those who were serving and leading and preaching on a national level had been vetted and watched and had shown their commitment as well as had contributed to our great missions endeavor. Somewhere about 6 or so years ago, that began to change. Now these leadership positions are being used as carrots to entice those who have never contributed, are not committed and really don’t identify themselves as part of the SBC. The net effect is that those who are leading are not leaders – at least by example. They lead by what they say and not by what they have done. As SB’s began to realize that those at the helm have such a poor track record and really don’t understand how this massive denomination works there will be a drastic drop in support and involvement from the churches that make up the majority of our members and give the overwhelming majority of the funds. Then where will our missions ability be as a denomination?
3. Addressed above.
Hope that helps.
The questions by Adam and Whitt’s response have both been removed (You however can see them cached here). Brad, here is my response:
To answer #1: First, I don’t think you can call “Southern Baptist Calvinism” “Presbyterian Calvinism” until we start baptizing babies. Second, double predestination and a plurality of elders in leadership are part of the freedom of the local church. If they want to autonomously be lead by elders, affirm double predestination, or drink alcohol in moderation, then they are free to do so. If 5-pointers are still evangelistic, why do you care if they affirm double predestination? Would you have a problem with William Carey if he were alive today? Furthermore, I recently attended a 9 Marks weekender at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, a Southern Baptist Church in Washington, DC. They have a plurality of elders, and are still congregational. Why do you have a problem with this? For, if we’re honest, MOST Southern Baptist churches are lead by deacons, which is foreign to Scripture. Third, alcohol being viewed as a blessing from God in the SBC is NOT primarily due to Reformed theology, but is primarily a result of the conservative resurgence. Here’s proof:
Roughly, 10% of pastors today in the SBC claim to be 5-point Calvinists (2006); and yet, when Lifeway polled Southern Baptist laity a year later (2007), 28% strongly agreed and 25% somewhat agreed with this statement: “When a Christian partakes of alcohol in reasonable amounts, they are simply exercising a biblical liberty.” So, I challenge you Brad Whitt to prove that Reformed Theology, the Doctrines of Grace (10% of Southern Baptist pastors), lead to believing that “alcohol is a blessing from God” (something that 53% of Southern Baptist laity affirm). I could easily and more persuasively argue that believing the Bible is inerrant leads to drinking in moderation. Southern Baptists are actually reading their Bibles; and they’re not finding your arguments for teetotalism compelling. Also, I pastored a Southern Baptist church in Soddy Daisy, TN that was made up of about half teetotalers, and about half that were NOT teetotalers; and, only a few of them were Calvinists. All of them however were inerrantists. All previous pastors as well were teetotalers… including me.
Finally, in response to your answer to this question, are 5-point Southern Baptist Calvinists violating the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, the agreed upon confession of faith of Southern Baptists? NO! So, aren’t you trying to hold other pastors and leaders to some standard that Southern Baptists have NOT agreed upon? Thus, aren’t you ignoring the voted wishes of Southern Baptists by making 5-point Calvinism a “crossroad issue”? Until Southern Baptists publicly make 5-point Calvinism an issue in the SBC with their vote, you are a trouble-maker. You are trying to create a crossroad issue in the SBC. It’s thus hypocritical for you to speak against 5-point Calvinism in one breath when the SBC has NOT, and then to argue in favor of the cooperative program in the next breath. The gospel should be central concerning our cooperation, NOT how many points of the T.U.L.I.P. you or I affirm beyond the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.
To answer #2: First, cooperative program giving has been plummeting for over 30 years:
Cooperative Program as a Percentage of Undesignated Church Offerings:
1978-79…..11.130
1987-88…..10.323
1997-98….. 8.13
2007-08….. 6.082
2008-09….. 5.868
In light of these percentages, how in the world can you blame the lack of cooperative giving on some “recent” phenomenon? Also, there’s NO way that Calvinism can be blamed for the diminishing of the cooperative program; especially if only 10% of Southern Baptist pastors are 5-point Calvinists.
Second, I would like for you to publicly prove your statement that those who are in current leadership positions in the SBC have “never contributed” to the cooperative program. For the record, I’m a 4-point Calvinist, and my church contributes 16% to the cooperative program and an additional 2% to the local association. I know other Calvinists that are HUGE supporters of the cooperative program; and I also know several non-Calvinists that are NOT huge supporters of the cooperative program. I just saw for example that the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship had to cut their budget substantially. I suppose Calvinism is to blame for this as well? Or, possibly some “structure” change?
Finally, you argue that as Southern Baptists “realize that those at the helm have such a poor track record and really don’t understand how this massive denomination works there will be a drastic drop in support and involvement from the churches that make up the majority of our members and give the overwhelming majority of the funds. Then where will our missions ability be as a denomination?” What do you think has been happening for the past 30 years? If giving percentages are a testimony concerning Southern Baptist opinion of the SBC leadership, as you suggest, then churches have NOT been satisfied with the leadership in the SBC for over 30 years. Doesn’t this mean that a change is needed? Also, instead of pointing to 5-point Calvinism as a “future cause of greater division,” shouldn’t you be encouraging Southern Baptist churches to support those in Southern Baptist leadership, regardless their T.U.L.I.P. affirmation, since they’re NOT violating the BF+M 2000, and they’re serious about the gospel? Just because they may be doing things differently than you or I would, or just because they affirm a few more points of the T.U.L.I.P. than we do, or just because they were placed in leadership using a different structure than was used in the past, does NOT necessarily mean that they shouldn’t be supported; or that they shouldn’t be in Southern Baptist leadership. *Also, unless you point it out, how many of our churches know how much a certain leader’s church gave to the cooperative program before they were placed in leadership? *Furthermore, if you or I only support our leaders when we agree with them, then we’re only willing to follow ourselves; this attitude reveals our arrogance.
To conclude, I understand that there have been some stupid things done in Southern Baptist churches and possibly SBC leadership in the name of Calvinism; but, I want you to know that this stupidity is NOT the natural outworking of Calvinism. Do you know how many stupid things I’ve seen non-Calvinist Southern Baptists do in the SBC? And yet, I don’t blame non-Calvinism for their stupidity. Thus, please don’t blame all 5-pointers for the mistakes of a stupid few. If 5-point Calvinism indeed “causes greater division” in the SBC as you predict, it will be because of men like you. For, I want to cooperate with you for the sake of revealing God’s glory to the nations. Will you cooperate with me? Will you cooperate with 5-point Southern Baptist Calvinists that affirm double predestination, a plurality of elders, and drinking in moderation? Shouldn’t the gospel be the issue; instead of issues that go beyond the Baptist Faith & Message 2000? Maybe you want a narrower sbc; but, until the sbc agrees with you through their voting, I believe you’re stirring up trouble instead of encouraging cooperation. You’re thus hindering cooperation.
*By the way, I don’t affirm double predestination; I prefer a plurality of elders, and I’m a teetotaler by choice, not conviction.
Incoming search terms for the article:
.gif "Enjoying God Through the Final Four Harry Potter Movies")
